Talk:The City on the Edge of Forever (episode)
From Talk:Drug dealer Necessary? If there are further references to drug dealing in Star Trek then I'm all for keeping this article, but if all we can put in it is a line of background information then I suggest this be deleted. --| TrekFan Open a channel 17:00, May 12, 2015 (UTC) :I wouldn't oppose deleting it(absent other references that I'm not presently aware of) but we could merge this with the episode's article since this seems pertinent to it. 31dot (talk) 20:42, May 12, 2015 (UTC) Yeah, that would be an option providing the info isn't already on that page. --| TrekFan Open a channel 21:31, May 12, 2015 (UTC) But we would require a citation for the info. --| TrekFan Open a channel 21:32, May 12, 2015 (UTC) ::It is on the page. I didn't think this would be the only reference. --LauraCC (talk) 14:43, May 13, 2015 (UTC) :::In a deeper google search it seems that the reference to a "drug dealer" in the original script by Harlan Ellison is the only Trek reference to this term. Tom (talk) 15:14, May 13, 2015 (UTC) :: By that name, yes. But a note that these guys (Brekkian) basically did that (though they bartered, not sold for cash) would be appropriate. --LauraCC (talk) 15:16, May 13, 2015 (UTC) I think it's a stretch to call the Brekkians drug dealers if they weren't specifically referred to as such in the episode. --| TrekFan Open a channel 16:10, May 13, 2015 (UTC) I have now formally nominated this article for deletion. Any further discussion should be directed here. --| TrekFan Open a channel 16:36, May 13, 2015 (UTC) :Merged with the episode and left the term as a redirect as per PfD. Tom (talk) 16:58, May 19, 2015 (UTC) Dated Premise The episode revolves around the premise that delaying the US entering the war would have given Nazi Germany time to make the A-bomb. While a staple in movies of this era (Battle of the Bulge makes reference to a weapon that can destroy a city in a single blast) the facts undermind that very premise. In OTL Germany's heavy water experiments were moving at a snail's pace because Hitler believed the war would end before they would be ready: "From the start of the war until the late fall of 1941, the German 'lightning war' had marched from one victory to another, subjugating most of Europe. During this period, the Germans needed no wonder weapons. After the Soviet counterattack, Pearl Harbor, and the German declaration of war against the United States, the war had become one of attrition. For the first time, German Army Ordnance asked its scientists when it could expect nuclear weapons." (NOVA: Nazis and the bomb) Because Germany only started looking at atom bombs in 1942 they were three years behind the US program which had started in 1939 and they never caught up--they only got to an early part the 1942 stage of Manhattan project in 1945. From what we can put together the best Germany could have produced in 1946 was a conventionally powered "dirty bomb" : "At best this would have been far less destructive than the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. Rather it is an example of scientists trying to make any sort of weapon they could in order to help stave off defeat." (NOVA; Nazis and the Bomb) Another problem is the V2. In OTL when Hitler was first show the plans for the V2 in late 1941 he was dismissive of the V2 as essentially an artillery shell with a longer range and much higher cost (Irons, Roy. Hitler's terror weapons: The price of vengeance. p. 181.) It was not until 1944 with German moral waning in the face of defeat after defeat that Hitler decided on building the V2. In anything resembling OTL it is a catch-22 situation: a more successful Nazi Germany thanks to less US involvement would mean delaying both the German A-bomb (not really viable until 1948 under the best of conditions) and the V2 to carry it. So delaying US involvement in WWII essentially delays the very weapons that supposedly let Germany win the war! Also the V2 simply didn't have the ability to carry an A-bomb; the V2 had the ability to carry a 2,200 pounds payload while Little Boy (smallest A-bomb of the time) was 9,700 pounds. This is why Stalin put so many resources into duplicating the Superfortress instead of simply copying the V2 and slapping an A-bomb on top of it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:19, August 19, 2017 (UTC) :You may or may not be correct about your analysis, but it is just that, your analysis, which is not suitable article content. If you have published sources which discuss this idea in the context of the episode, that might merit inclusion, but not our own personal analysis. 31dot (talk) 12:55, August 21, 2017 (UTC) Gavriel D. Rosenfeld's (2005) The World Hitler Never Made: Alternate History and the Memory of Nazism Cambridge University Press comments on the trope of 'Nazi's were months away from having the bomb' used in City on the Edge of Forever (and other places) with notes regarding the original script (notes 43-45 page 432). The Nitpicker's Guide for Classic Trekkers points out another glitch...Spock was recording history when McCoy jumped through the Guardian...how did Spock know what originally happened to Edith Keeler as well as the alternative?--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:24, August 21, 2017 (UTC) :A published source like that, discussing this episode in particular, would likely merit inclusion in some form. We don't include nitpicks per the nitpick policy unless they are discussed by Trek staff or other similar source. :BTW our practice here on MA is to keep the indent we start a conversation with consistent throughout the discussion(which is different than Wikipedia). 31dot (talk) 13:33, August 21, 2017 (UTC) :: More than nitpick, this reeks entirely of original research. We are here to write an encyclopedia based on the content presented on screen or valid resources, not critique the story writers' knowledge of "real" historical facts. They're simply telling a story, and discussing said ability to tell a story in contrast to factual history is not what MA talk pages are here for. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 18:45, August 21, 2017 (UTC) You do realize that a work published by Cambridge University Press would be considered reliable even by wikipedia standards, right? Heck, The Nitpicker's Guide for Classic Trekkers has been viewed as a reliable source by wikipedia (It is used in their version of The Squire of Gothos so invoking original research is, on this matter, strange. Never mind that we already contrast what Star Trek said and the real world (see on Gill's statement that Nazi Germany was the "most efficient" state Earth ever knew).--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:58, August 22, 2017 (UTC) :: First. Keep your place in the indent line. Second. We are MA:NOT Wikipedia. Third. Yes, when properly cited along with corresponding information, they are valid sources, however the nitpicker's guide does violate MA:NIT, and therefore is counter-intuitive to our project. Finally, you are assuming that you are making valid comparisons to other articles work that are also correctly presented. Chances are, they are not. Which reminds me, also please learn to use proper eplks when citing episodes. Thanks. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 13:19, August 22, 2017 (UTC) :::Original research doesn't mean the same here as it means on Wikipedia. We limit ourself to documenting the Star Trek universe, so any analysis that goes far beyond discussing the specifics of the episode counts as original research, no matter if it's the thoughts of some random editor or a published scholar. This isn't a place for essays. -- Capricorn (talk) 17:24, August 22, 2017 (UTC) Per the above since the Cambridge University Press article 'discusses the specifics of the episode' it isn't original research even by this wiki's standard.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:25, February 12, 2019 (UTC) Production Timeline Day 7 & 8 Day 7 & 8 are both on 13 February 1967. is this correct--Shisma